Negotiations over equity split

[Confusedanddazed]

My H and I are separated and planning to divorce (I want to wait for 2 years separated but he's keen to do it sooner) and we are planning to sell our house in the next few months as I can't take on the mortgage payments myself.
H has told me that he thinks the fairest way to do things is to split the equity 50/50 as he put down the deposit for our first flat (10 years ago)and over the years has paid more into the mortgage. That is true but percentage-wise we have roughly put the same amount into the mortgage as he earned more than me for most of the time and that seemed fair.
He views 50/50 split as being concillatory but I don't. In the last few years he has been made redundant 3 times and been out of work 4 times and I absolutely do not want to be reliant on his maintenance to keep a roof over mine and my DD's head considering his unreliable work record.
I want to suggest that if he gives me more equity up front in return for lowered maintenance payments.
Is this a reasonable tactic to take and has anyone else done something similar? Will I be shooting myself in the foot later down the line??
I really want a fresh financial start and for me that means getting as much equity as I can to buy somewhere half decent for me and my DD.
Has anyone else been in similar situation?

CM is set by the CSA - do you mean spousal maintenance?

50/50 for capital split is just a staring point... assets tend to follow the children... who will care for them? If it is you, then depending on many other factors, you could get anyting up to 100% of the capital. It really depends how much is needed to meet their basic housing needs..

You need to post on the legal board on MN for a better response... and provide more detail - what other assets are there? Pensions, savings etc? Your respective incomes etc.

Good luck, I'm in similar situation - working towards getting house done up to put on the market and split the assets. Get yourself independant legal advice even if you go for mediation so YOU know where you stand. My understanding from legal advice I've had is that the courts don't give a hoot about the parents, it's the needs of the child that's paramount so 50/50 is a starting point; if you need more of the joint equit for "reasonable" accomodation to house the child/ren then that 50/50 split changes to your benefit. However, they do take into account earnings and earniong potential. It's accepted that where one parent (usually the mother) has dropped her career and earnings and therefore pension to bring up baby, then her earning potential will have been affected by that and its accepted that the 50/50 asset split will again be more so in her favour. Our mediation lawyer quite pointedly told my ex that even tho he'd put more money into the relationship, I'd done the bulk of the childcare and "house" work and the law sees both contributions as equal, different but equal, so the financial split starts at 50/50. This is why you hear lots of stories of pissed off Dads and the mother getting the bulk of the assets plus keeping the kids. On the face of it, it does seem unfair but if she's given up her career and earning potential and pension to bring up the kids whilst he's posb gone on to greater payrises and promotions, you can kinda see the logic behind it. She says, probably heading for a greater than 50/50 share of the joint assets herself and preparing herself for a very pissed off ex!

50/50 is only Ok if you don't have children.

In reaching any settlement the welfare of the child is paramount so one of you may require more than 50% to provide your child a permanent home.

You may want to seek more than 50% in order to make a 'clean break' - i.e. you take no maintenance from him for yourself, he only pays maintenance for the child.

If he comes away with less than 50% after you and your child have been house that's tough for him - but the child's needs come first.

Thanks for your replies so far :-)
I was looking to reduce his child maintenance payments which I believe would be 15% going by the CSA website.
I'm prepared to reduce this in order to have more equity. I hadn't really even thought about spousal maintenance. Would I be entitled to this and is it something that always gets worked out when you get a legal settlement of finances?
I work full time (I had to go back full time from maternity leave when he lost his job last year) and I will have to continue to work full time in order to be able to afford a mortgage and child care. We earn the same salary now.

Think you need proper legal advice, Confused.
It sounds as though he might be trying to rush you into some arrangement that is not in your best interest.
I'm pretty sure you can negotiate more equity in exchange for less maintenance if he's willing. A clean break, so to speak, with maybe no call on his pension etc, but please get a solicitor to talk you through the pros & cons of this.